It's very true that most of the movie-going public didn't know Blade was a comic book character when the film, and that was ok, because it didn't cater to the typical comic book audience, i.e. teens.
But it was still a comic book movie, regardless. Because most of the movie going public at the time wasn't aware of that and that being part of it's success at the box office is debatable.
If anything, Blade opened the gates for modern vampire movies that incorporate more science than supernatural, like the Underworld series and countless others. This is the first film I can think of where the ideas of bullets of concentrated garlic and UV lamps, and other high tech gadgets being used against vampires.
Most likely it did, even though I feel that there were a few attempts at incorporating more science based explanations than superstitious fantasy to vampires on movies before Blade was released. But Blade was the most well known of the vampire movies as well to have really laid it all out on the map. The bullets of guns used in Blade were mostly silver, not concentrated with garlic. The garlic projectile used in Blade was just a 'vampire mace' that was sprayed with a push of a button.
Same for The Crow. Not every goth kid who worshipped that movie knew or even cared that it was a comic first. Only hardcore fans.
Well, the Crow movie was an adaptation of a comic book. Yes. However, that was an underground independent comic book. While Blade was somewhat obscure since he appeared in Marvel comics, who's anything but underground, he was already gaining more exposure in he early 90's. Yet they had to make some changes here and there, and also, vampires were still the rage in the 90's.
There are plenty of movies that borrowed from comics. the original Punisher was really dark and gritty...then there's Hellboy...
X-Men opened the floodgates for straight comic adaptations.
The original Punisher movie, the 1989 movie I believe you are talking about, was dark and gritty, but it was not a great adaptation of him overall and it never got released theatrically in the US, just direct to video. It was also ashamed to be a comic book movie, even more than the Dark Knight trilogy. It was a failed comic book movie and I don't see how it helps your argument. Hellboy already came out after the first Blade, the same year Blade Trinity came out.
X-Men was a comic book movie of an actual household name comic book title from Marvel comics. But Blade (1998) was still a comic book movie from Marvel also, and it helped saved Marvel from bankruptcy. It got the word out one way or another, that it's a comic book movie as well, it's one of Marvel's. Considering this all happened as the massive failure of Batman and Robin (1997) and even Spawn (1997), which were associated with DC and Image comics...Marvel's competitors, was still fresh in many people's minds.
Blade's overall success critically and box office wise in 1998 is what helped green light the very first theatrically released live action X-Men movie. If it wasn't for Blade, would we have had X-Men in the magical and awesome summer of 2000?
reply
share